30 Sep 2014

One in 8 three-year-olds has rotting teeth... and fruit juice is to blame:

Parents warned organic drinks and smoothies can contain as much sugar as a glass of coke

  • In some English regions as many as a third of children have rotten teeth
  • Leicester has the most, with 34 per cent of three-year-olds suffering 
  • Experts urge families to restrict children to milk and water 
  • Middle-class parents who buy expensive organic juices in the belief they are healthier have been warned they can contain as much sugar as a glass of coke. 
    One health official observed: ‘Posh sugar is no better than any other sugar.’
    Earlier this year health officials urged the public to cut their sugar intake to between five and seven teaspoons a day to prevent rising levels of obesity and rotting teeth.
    A 200ml glass of organic apple juice contains 20 grams of sugar – nearly five teaspoons – only slightly less than the same amount of coke, which has 22 grams.
    Experts, including the chief medical officer Dame Sally Davies, have called for a tax to be slapped on sugary drinks to deter the public from buying them.
    In the first study of its kind, officials at Public Health England – a Government agency – examined the teeth of a sample of 53,640 three-year-olds at nursery schools. 
    They found an average of 12 per cent – one in eight – had tooth decay ranging from small holes, needing fillings or having teeth extracted. 
    If the trend is repeated across England, then nearly 85,000 three-year-olds have rotten teeth.
    Leicester has the highest rates, with 34 per cent of three-year-olds having rotten teeth. Others included the relatively affluent boroughs of Hillingdon, West London, at 25 per cent, and Charnwood in Leicestershire at 29 per cent.
    Sandra White, director of dental health for Public Health England, said: ‘The biggest culprit is fruit juice. Organic apple juice sounds healthy on the packet, but actually it’s packed with sugar

29 Sep 2014

Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats.

Martín-Pardillos A1Sosa C2Millán Á3Sorribas V4.

Abstract

Public water fluoridation is a common policy for improving dental health. Fluoride replaces the hydroxyls of hydroxyapatite, thereby improving the strength of tooth enamel, but this process can also occur in other active calcifications. This paper studies the effects of water fluoridation during the course of vascular calcification in renal disease. The effect of fluoride was studied in vitro and in vivo. Rat aortic smooth muscle cells were calcified with 2mM Pi for 5 days. Fluoride concentrations of 5-10 μM--similar to those found in people who drink fluoridated water--partially prevented calcification, death, and osteogene expression in vitro. The anticalcifying mechanism was independent of cell activity, matrix Gla protein, and fetuin A expressions, and it exhibited an IC50 of 8.7 μM fluoride. In vivo, however, fluoridation of drinking water at 1.5mg/L (concentration recommended by the WHO) and 15 mg/L dramatically increased the incipient aortic calcification observed in rats with experimental chronic kidney disease (CKD, 5/6-nephrectomy), fed a Pi-rich fodder (1.2% Pi). Fluoride further declined the remaining renal function of the CKD animals, an effect that most likely overwhelmed the positive effect of fluoride on calcification in vitro. Ultrastructural analysis revealed that fluoride did not modify the Ca/P atomic ratio, but it was incorporated into the lattice of in vivo deposits. Fluoride also converted the crystallization pattern from plate to rode-like structures. In conclusion, while fluoride prevents calcification in vitro, the WHO's recommended concentrations in drinking water become nephrotoxic to CKD rats, thereby aggravating renal disease and making media vascular calcification significant

27 Sep 2014

Public Health England challenged on fluoride policy Friday, 26 September 2014


At a meeting in London of South East Strategic Leaders on Thursday, addressed by Public Health England, Hampshire County Council Leader, Roy Perry challenged their spokesmen to 'come clean' on their fluoride policy.
Cllr Perry said the initial reaction of Dr Graham Bickler was that Public Health England regarded the issue of adding fluoride to public water supplyas now being up to local authorities, but he promised to make further
enquiries about the situation in Hampshire.
Commenting on the response, Cllr Perry said: "If that is indeed Public Health England's position it is very welcome. But is it their position? For months now, Hampshire has been trying to get a clear statement out of PHE to that effect and to date (26 Sept 2014) they have singularly failed to answer
our questions.
"It is not just the city of Southampton that is affected by the fluoride proposal. Hampshire communities all around the city could be impacted and I know the residents of Nursling and Rownhams that I represent do not consider they have been properly consulted.
"I hope my question to PHE will now get an answer and indeed the formal response will say it is up to the local authorities to determine whether or not fluoride should be added."

Hampshire County Council is of the view that contractual arrangements were not in place by 1 April last year (when Strategic Health Authorities were abolished and the responsibility for decision making on proposals,

transferred to upper tier and unitary local authorities). The County Council has been in discussions with PHE and Southampton City Council as to most appropriate way to settle the legal issues.

Press Release



Hampshire Against Fluoridation


PRESS RELEASE: September 2014
Public Debate on Water Fluoridation
Five years after the decision was made to artificially fluoridate local water, controversy and uncertainty still surround the plans. The region has been in a state of limbo for a number of years and the legal situation continues to be disputed.

Hampshire Against Fluoridation has organised a public debate1 so local people can put questions to decision-makers from Southampton and Hampshire Councils, find out about the current legal position and what is happening “behind the scenes”. All local MPs were invited as was the Director of Public Health for Southampton. The following panel members2 agreed to take part:

  • Councillor Dave Shields, Cabinet Member for Health, Southampton City Council
  • Councillor Roy Perry, Leader, Hampshire County Council
  • Councillor David Harrison, Hampshire County Council
  • Dr Julian Lewis, MP New Forest East
  • Keith Taylor MEP South East

The abolition of South Central Strategic Health Authority in 2013 was a key factor in putting the brakes on the scheme. As NO CONTRACTS were signed before their demise and no scheme finalised, plans to proceed cannot be continued by either Public Health England (PHE) or local councils without beginning the whole process again including a new feasibility study, costings and consultation.

As HAF has repeatedly pointed out, the legislation makes it clear that without a contract, NO SCHEME EXISTS and therefore PHE have no remit to implement one. HAF’s interpretation of the legislation concurs with that of Hampshire County Council (HCC) and Dr Julian Lewis MP, both of whom have corresponded with the Department of Health and PHE3. Legal arguments over interpretation of the regulations continue. This statement from HCC Leader Cllr Roy Perry in correspondence with HAF’s Bill Edmunds in June summarises the position of HCC: “We are currently in a process of legal argument with PHE and it would be inappropriate for me to say more at this point – other than we have not yet seen a legal argument in favour of the view that PHE can implement such a scheme4.

There has been a shift in PHE’s position and they now claim to be undecided. A recent Freedom of Information5 request from HAF Chair John Spottiswoode generated this reply from PHE: “If PHE (on behalf of the Secretary of State) was minded to proceed with this proposed fluoridation scheme….it could do so …. by virtue of s.87(1) of the Water Industry Act 1991….and Article 7(1) of the Health & Social Care Act 20126 Given that no decision as to whether or not to proceed has been made, PHE has not progressed the formal request to the water company to enter into arrangements”.

The region is still in limbo and will have to simply wait and see if PHE are “minded to proceed”.
Further opinions on the legality of the scheme will be made at the Public Meeting on 4th October.

ENDS



26 Sep 2014

fluoride-lowers-childrens-iq
trust-government-and-drink-fluoridated-water-2

25 Sep 2014

M.D. Argues Cancer Treatment and Prevention are the Same

cancer_michael_gregor_crop-263x176If you’ve noticed an odd lump in the shower that you later find is breast cancer, it is possible that it started to develop over 20 years ago. The same rogue cells that decide to become cancerous seem to be caused by the identical abnormal functioning of the body.
In fact, all epithelial cancers — breast, colon, lung, pancreas, prostate, ovarian, and others – can usually be avoided. What’s more, sometimes the treatment for cancer is the same thing as the prevention for cancer, at least according to Michael Gregor, M.D., a physician, author, and international speaker.

Dr. John Yiamouyiannis,



Very old but worth watching again. Shame he died so young.

Quack watch says this

"Dr. John Yiamouyiannis,
Fluoridation Opponent, Dead at 58
Stephen Barrett, M.D.
John Yiamouyiannis, Ph.D. (1943–2000) liked to call himself "the world's leading authority on the biological effects of fluoride." [1] He was for more than 25 years the most active antifluoridationist in the United States. He was very bright—and determined. Had he chosen a positive direction, he might well have made a valuable contribution to science. But he did not. Despite training as a biochemist, he became obsessed with the idea that water fluoridation is dangerous."

He was a biochemist - not despite training as a biochemist.

Fluoride was definitively identified as an endocrine disruptor in a 2006 report by the U.S. National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC).

In summary, evidence of several types indicates that fluoride affects normal endocrine function or response; the effects of the fluoride-induced changes vary in degree and kind in different individuals. Fluoride is therefore an endocrine disruptor in the broad sense of altering normal endocrine function or response, although probably not in the sense of mimicking a normal hormone. The mechanisms of action remain to be worked out and appear to include both direct and indirect mechanisms, for example, direct stimulation or inhibition of hormone secretion by interference with second messenger function, indirect stimulation or inhibition of hormone secretion by effects on things such as calcium balance, and inhibition of peripheral enzymes that are necessary for activation of the normal hormone

Should fluoride be put in water to prevent tooth decay?

NO says Elizabeth McDonagh, spokeswoman for the National Pure Water Association
Oxford Mail: FLUORIDE is not an essential nutrient. If we do not need to ingest fluoride, there is absolutely no reason to add it to our water supplies.
The toxicity of fluoride compounds lies between that of lead and arsenic.
Earlier this year a review of developmental neurotoxins in The Lancet Neurology identified fluoride as one of a number of chemicals that could cause developmental disabilities.
Fluoride’s toxicity and the fact it’s not an essential nutrient probably explains why its level in human breast milk is extremely low.
This means that a baby drinking formula feed reconstituted with fluoridated water will be drinking up to 200 times more fluoride than a breast-fed baby, significantly increasing the risk of dental fluorosis later in childhood.
Dental fluorosis is a manifestation of systemic fluoride toxicity and results in permanent mottling and discolouring of teeth.
A 2010 Fluoride Journal paper showed that 25 per cent of us in the UK are already getting more fluoride (from all sources) than is safe.
This figure rises to 67 per cent in fluoridated areas.
Fluoridation proponents have never shown that those at high risk of developing tooth decay in a community are receiving less fluoride compared to those at lower risk.
The authors of a 2009 Journal of Public Health Dentistry study considered the ‘optimal’ fluoride intake using dental fluorosis and dental caries outcomes.
They stated: “These findings suggest that achieving a caries-free status may have relatively little to do with fluoride intake, while fluorosis is clearly more dependent on fluoride intake.”
Despite fluoridation having started in 1945, nearly 70 years later there is not one high-quality scientific study that shows the addition of fluoridation chemicals to water supplies to be effective in reducing tooth decay.
A high-quality scientific study would be an individual, randomised controlled trial (RCT) using coded bottled water.
A call for just this type of study came in a recent letter to the British Dental Journal.
The authors refute an earlier claim in the journal that Hospital Episode Statistics-reported rates of extraction under general anaesthesia are a useful indicator of the efficacy of fluoridation.
The Department of Health presents the addition of fluoridation chemicals to water supplies as having the properties to prevent tooth decay, which fulfils the European Union’s definition of a medicinal product for human use – “any substance or combination of substances presented as having properties for treating or preventing disease in human beings” – Directive 2004/27/EC.
Water companies which administer industrial grade fluorosilicic acid to their customers are, in effect, medicating them without their individual, informed consent.
The National Pure Water Association is pleased to note that in his report to Oxfordshire County Council’s joint health overview and scrutiny committee, the Director of Public Health does not recommend fluoridation.
He outlines existing measures targeting resources towards those at high risk of tooth decay.

Echo letter


24 Sep 2014

Still their web page assures us they care.

I wrote the following to the Environment Agency querying why they allow Public Health even to think about the right to dump 200 tonnes per annum of Hexafluorosilicic acid into our drinking water. 

"Are you aware that HF acid is only 98% pure and 2 % of heavy metals get tipped in as well including mercury which is dangerous at parts per billion? Surely no mercury should be the aim and not the addition no matter how small."

This their reply:

The discharge of mercury and other metals is covered by the same permitting policy. Mercury is classed as a priority hazardous substance i.e. it is considered to be harmful, but discharges may still be permitted if the EQS and deterioration requirements are complied with. Section 1.4 of the permitting guidance gives some more detail on the requirements for priority hazardous substances.

HAF chairman sums it up:

So all toxic waste polluters have to do is drip feed it into the environment continuously over many years and that is fine, which indeed does happen in many areas.  The cumulative load is then the legacy that often gets take up by plants and animals.  Then people wonder why cancers and degenerative diseases are on the continuous rise.

23 Sep 2014

22 Sep 2014

Study: Dietary sugars should be drastically reduced

.............."Tooth decay is a serious problem worldwide, and reducing sugars intake makes a huge difference," stated study author Aubrey Sheiham, BDS, PhD, an emeritus professor of dental public health at UCL, in the release. "Data from Japan were particularly revealing, as the population had no access to sugar during or shortly after the Second World War. We found that decay was hugely reduced during this time, but then increased as they began to import sugar again."
The researchers also noted that a previous study found that only 2% of people living in Nigeria had caries when their diet contained almost no sugar, about half a teaspoon (2 grams) per day (British Dental Journal, 1967, Vol. 123, pp. 144-148). In comparison, some 92% of U.S. adults have had caries............

20 Sep 2014

WARNING! About Toothpastes That Contain MICROBEADS

Tipped tanker with flouride chemicals

CLEARFIELD — A tanker carrying chemicals nearly tipped over Friday in Clearfield, causing major traffic delays as crews worked to prevent it from spilling.

The vehicle was transporting the chemical hydrofluorosilicic to a large Clearfield water tank at the intersection of State Road 193 and University Park Boulevard around 11 a.m. when it tipped partially over on a steep embankment.

At about 12 p.m., SR 193 was closed off between 1500 East in Clearfield to Hill Field Road in Layton in case of an acid spill. These roads were closed for about three hours, snarling traffic nearby. Hill Air Force Base, the Weber State University-Davis campus and Clearfield High School were affected by the gridlock.

The fluoride ingredient is regularly added to that water tank, fire officials said, but can be hazardous if spilled in large amounts. Hydrofluorosilicic is corrosive in high concentration; in extreme amounts, like the 36,000 gallons nearly spilled Friday, it can cause breathing problems if inhaled.

No fluoridation - no tankers on the streets.

19 Sep 2014

Parents must take blame for children's rotten teeth


PARENTS have a multitude of responsibilities to their children. They do not start and end at keeping them fed, clothed, warm and turning up to school on time.
Caring for their teeth is a key life skill, yet it appears too many of the parents in the city and in the north of the county are failing their children.
There will not be one single common cause, yet parents are the single factor for the appalling state of our children’s teeth.
Dentists have told us there may be some cultural issues and the non-fluoridation of our water supply is also being blamed.
There is, if we are honest, also the factor that too many parents take the easy route when it comes to feeding their children.
Sugary processed foods and drinks are teeth killers.
As with all aspects of diet, variety and balance is key.
Scooping armfuls of ready-to-go food and drink and shovelling it into little Johnny’s satchel and then not making him brush properly is failing your child.
And that type of attitude, where good oral hygiene is not valued, then tumbles down the generations.
As a parent you could fix that.
As a parent you must.